Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I'm offering this amendment for myself and my Co-Chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Bond, along with Senators Lott, Stevens and Grassely. Last year conferees added language to the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization bill requiring all counter-drug missions conducted by National Guard units to comply with section 2012 of Title 10 and section 508 of Title 32. Before these changes, National Guard men and women supported Federal, State and Local law enforcement agencies in a wide variety of ways from transcription and translation of DEA wiretaps to aerial and ground thermal imaging of suspected indoor marijuana growing to maintaining listening and Observation posts along the Southwest Border. But because of changes in last year's bill, National Guard members now can only participate in counter drug missions if the mission contributes to their military speciality skills or MOS. For example, this means a member of National Guard whose MOS is a radio specialist could only work in that speciality or if an airman is a mechanic he or she could only repair an airplane! You won't find anyone in the Guard Bureau or the Department of Defense who has ever claimed that counter-drug duty has a negative impact on the training and readiness of National Guard personnel. In fact, there's empirical evidence that counter-drug duty enhances the military readiness of National Guard personnel. And because counter- drug duty is in addition to the required readiness training, it adds no extra readiness training costs. Our amendment will correct this problem, deleting the provisions added in the Fiscal Year 1998 bill, and allowing the National Guard to continue this supportive role in federal, state and local drug demand reduction, as well as interdiction missions. The amendment would also clarify how National Guard personnel can be used in counter-drug activity when providing support to certain youth and charitable organizations. Our amendment would amend the definition of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities to specify that such activities include drug demand reduction activities. By providing support to youth and charitable organizations as part of state counter- drug activities, demand reduction has been part of the National Guard program since its inception and has had the approval of the Secretary of Defense. Language in last year's Defense Authorization bill presented major problems in the Guard's ability to interact with these groups. Our amendment also says that federal funds provided to a state for counter-drug activity can be used to procure or lease equipment. Current law authorizes leasing, but precludes the procurement of equipment. This forces states to lease equipment even though it would be more cost effective to purchase the equipment. Examples of equipment that would be more cost effective to purchase then lease would be Night Vision goggles, Infrared I.D. equipment and Range Finders. Mr. President, these are just the highlights of the major provisions of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a section by section explanation of this amendment be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. FORD. In closing, I want to tell the members of the Armed Services Committee and their staffs how much I appreciate their consideration and willingness to accept this amendment. I know they'll do the best they can to assure this amendment remains in the final bill. Exhibit 1. Section-by-Section Analysis Subsection (a) would specify that Federal Funds provided to a State under a State plan can be used to procure or lease equipment for the National Guard to use in support of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities. A strict interpretation of the current statutory language would authorize the leasing, but preclude the procurement, of equipment necessary to carry out the purposes of the statute. Such an interpretation would impose unnecessary expenses on the program because it would force states to lease equipment in situations where procuring equipment would be more cost effective. This interpretation would also prevent participation in authorized support missions when necessary equipment cannot be leased. The statute needs to be clarified to ensure that States have flexibility in deciding whether to lease or purchase equipment based on considerations of economy and determinations of necessity. Subsection (b) would eliminate the provision in paragraph (b)(2) of section 112 that provides that units and personnel of the National Guard can only perform drug interdiction and counter-drug activities that comply with the requirements of section 2012(d) of title 10, United States Code. Paragraph (b)(2) was enacted as part of the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 (public law 105-85) to ensure that the use of units and personnel of the National Guard pursuant to a State drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan is not detrimental to their training and readiness. However, the restrictions in section 2012(d) are not tailored to address the unique nature of the National Guard drug interdiction and counter-drug program. National Guard personnel may derive readiness and preparedness benefits from their participation in activities under section 112, but such activities are in addition to, not in lieu of, required training. If this provision is enacted, National Guard personnel on extended Counterdrug orders will not lose any benefits while performing their required IDT and Annual Training requirements. Subsection (b) would also facilitate the accomplishment of training, by adding a new provision to enable National Guard members on extended tours of duty in the drug interdiction and counter-drug program to participate in required IDT and AT with their units without breaking their orders for counter-drug duty. During such training periods, covered individuals would be entitled to the same pay and benefits which they would otherwise receive if continuously performing duty for the purpose of carrying out drug interdiction and counter-drug activities. This will ensure that these individuals, while performing AT, do not lose any of the benefits associated with the longer period of counter-drug duty. This will also clarify that such individuals, while performing IDT, are entitled to pay associated with full-time National Guard duty, but not additional drill pay. Subsection (c) would clarify and revise the provision in subsection (b)(3) of section 112 that makes the restrictions in section 508 of title 32 applicable to situations in which units or members of the National Guard are used, pursuant to a State drug interdiction and counter-drug activities plan, to provide support to certain youth and charitable organizations. Under subsections (a)(3) and (a)(4) of section 508, services cannot be provided to eligible organizations unless the provision of such services enhances military skills and does not result in a significant increase in the cost of training. Because counter-drug activities are not incidental to training, but are in addition to training, these restrictions present a problem. The proposed revision would eliminate these restrictions, but would continue to make the other provisions in section 508 applicable to situations in which services or assistance are provided to an eligible organization as part of a state counter-drug activities plan. Subsection (d) would amend the definition of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities to specify that such activities for purposes of section 112 include drug demand reduction activities. Although drug demand reduction has been part of the activities carried out under section 112 since the inception of the program, the statute needs to be clarified to specifically include such activities to avoid confusion that results from a strict interpretation of the statute. Like any other counter-drug activities, proposed drug demand reduction activities must have a law enforcement nexus in order to be acceptable under a State plan.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment that is pending at the desk. The only thing I am doing is changing a section of reference.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, be added as a cosponsor of the Ford amendment pending before the Senate.

Mr. FORD. Madam President, let me just pick out a couple of headlines here. ``The best deal? Plan McConnell backs brings in quick cash, but would ultimately kill off small farms.'' ``Untimely demise. McConnell plan kills tobacco program too fast.'' These are in the Record. My colleague, Senator McConnell, referred to Congressman Ron Lewis who is for his position. Well, let me just say this, that Congressman Ron Lewis said that blood would run through Congress before he would give up the fight for the quota system. Then all of a sudden he now is for selling out. The Republican nominee to replace me for the U.S. Senate is for the LEAF program, not for the side that Senator McConnell is on. So it raises a lot of suspicion in the minds of my folks back home. Are Senator McConnell and Senator Lugar supporting the manufacturers or are they supporting the farmer? Because if the Lugar plan would go into effect, it would save the tobacco manufacturers a minimum of $1 billion a year over the next 25 years. And so when you have one major statewide official in Kentucky, elected official, representing the tobacco farmers in Kentucky for one position, the others the other way--our Governor supports the LEAF plan--I just do not understand. Maybe it is the big bucks for the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee to kill this bill and, in fact, killing the bill, then can say that the farmers continue to grow as they are. But then everybody is worried about their demise. And if you have a demise of the tobacco program, then we are in mighty bad shape without funding. I was criticized for supporting Senator McCain and $1.10, but then we find the Lugar-McConnell plan is using that money to pay the farmers. If we didn't have the money, we would not be able to pay the farmers. So, this thing gets awful mixed up. I will be very hopeful about those who read this and those who understand what is happening. I have a lot here I could talk about, but we have ENACT, that supports the Ford-Hollings plan; an open letter from the tobacco States, from all of the health groups and the tobacco groups supporting our plan. It just seems some way, somehow, there is something more than trying to do something for farmers here and those who are trying to defeat the program. I might just say in closing, here is the Chicago Tribune today: ``Health Funds Lose In Tobacco Talks: Everybody else gets their project on and youth are forgotten.'' If we are going to forget youth in this bill, maybe it is time we send it back to the Commerce Committee and try to write a bill that will be on target, that will save the youth from smoking. I think these young pages, after they hear the debate here, will never want to smoke, and I hope that is true. But when they become 21, they can do basically whatever they want to do. At that point, if they have not started smoking, they probably will not. But at the same time, we have a lot of folks who depend on this program. What we have done is help phase it out rather than cut it off at the knees. One of the things my friends on the other side, Senator Lugar and Senator McConnell, fail to say is when they do away with the program and the farmers get some money, they lose the value of their land. By some $7 billion in Kentucky alone, the value of farmland will be reduced, because the farmland is based on the tobacco quota. When you advertise a farm for sale, you put what the tobacco quota is in that farm sale. So, if we lose the farm program, as they would try to do, then we lose $7 billion in farmland value almost immediately. Some farmers could go to bed at night with their farm at one price, get up in the next morning and their farmland is at a lower price and it doesn't cover the mortgage, and the bank will foreclose on those farmers. People have not thought this through: ``Pay them some money, and get out of the business.'' Pay them a little bit of money, help them through the transition period here so we might be able to save their way of life. If my 5 minutes is up, I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Delaware. He is always gracious, and I appreciate him as a friend very much.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, a few moments ago, my colleague from Kentucky inserted some editorials in the Record--a few, and selective letters to the editor concerning our debate over the future of tobacco farmers. I do not want to take a lot of time on this matter, but I do not want anyone to get the mistaken impression that these articles represent the prevailing view in my State. I have 30 pages or more here, Madam President, of articles of my own, editorials with headlines like--and this is the Owensboro Messenger and Inquirer that my colleague mentioned a few moments ago. It says, ``Lugar Tobacco Bill Punishes Farmers.'' I think that tells a lot and that there are opinions at home that are somewhat different. Rather than take a lot of time, Madam President, I will simply ask unanimous consent that some of these articles be printed in the Record, and anyone with any doubt can simply read them, and they will understand how average tobacco farmers feel about the Lugar proposal.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. The Senator is not suggesting he is with you.

Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent that I might speak for 5 minutes and that at the end of that period of time my friend from Delaware be recognized.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for a question at that point?

Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FORD. I do not know that there are a great deal of additional thoughts that we need to discuss. I could go down--one of the things that I want people to understand is that we are not just doing away with the tobacco quota. Oh, we are paying them some money, but the average, I don't think, is going to be much over $20,000, divided by 3 years. And the taxes are paid. Anywhere from 15 to 20 percent of the value of Kentucky farmland is based on the tobacco quota. In rural Kentucky, banks will not lend to farmers unless they know the value of their tobacco quota. Real estate does not sell without disclosing the amount of tobacco quota on a farm. You can't sell a farm without disclosing that. That is an important feature. If you read the real estate section of the Kentucky newspapers, you will see the amount of tobacco quota advertised with the sale of the farmland. So if the program is done away with, then the value of the land is reduced anywhere from 15 to 20 percent, and that is up to $7 billion. So we are not only taking away the livelihood, we are also reducing the value of the product this farmer has worked all his life to hold. There is something here that I believe is fundamental--fairness. And under the Lugar bill, that is not fair. So this will have major, devastating consequences on the tax base in rural Kentucky--all because of the hostility of title XV toward the small tobacco farm. The Lugar alternative is really no alternative at all when you look at what happens to that tobacco farmer. It gives him a little money, and he is out. And we reduce the value of his land. He pays big sums of tax on it. If it is 20 percent, fine, but he has to figure some way. So, Mr. President, I do not know what the majority leader or the Democratic leader would like to do. I understand we have a joint meeting tonight, with both sides, beginning at 6:30. We are getting reasonably close to that. So in order to find out if it is all right with the Senator from Indiana, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. FORD. Is that 46 percent of 16 percent?

Mr. FORD. I appreciate you being a cosponsor on my LEAF Act, too.

Mr. FORD. The Senator's word is as good as gold. I have no problem with that. All I want to do is, after you get through, I imagine I will have something else to say, and then it will probably be dinnertime. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. I will be glad to give the Senator an opportunity to speak as long as he doesn't make a motion. When we get to a vote on this, I would like to have some agreement, if we could, as it relates to a vote.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is pretty tough when you have gone to the bank and borrowed money based on the value of your property, your farm, and overnight--overnight--the value of your property is reduced several hundred dollars per acre because you have lost your tobacco program that is of value. You go to bed tonight with a loan from the bank and your property will cover that loan, and in the morning, you have no program; the price of your property has been reduced and your mortgage is called. This is what I call a taking, Mr. President. We hear a lot about takings around here, about taking property, but you are taking the value of the land of this small farmer. As we say down in West Kentucky where I come from, ``Something about that ain't right.'' What do we do? We hear a lot about the buyout and money upfront and the older people who would like to sell out. Under the LEAF Act, that occurs. Anyone who wants to buy out at $8 a pound, the tenant, the lessee can sell. They can offer their crop for a buyout, and it will be done. It also says that one quota holder can sell to another quota holder. But it also says that if you want to continue under the present program, you can't. All agricultural economies--and I am sure a lot of folks here understands it--agribusiness says that it takes 10 to 15 years, and leans toward the 15 years, for a community to transform from one economic aspect to the other. We see under Senator Lugar's amendment--which was never voted on by the committee while the hearings were going on or when we had the regular markup; it was done here on the Senate floor by checking the majority on the Commerce Committee and the majority leader putting it in. I thought I had helped the chairman, Senator Hollings, and others get this bill out of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and on to the Senate floor. If you wonder how much money the Lugar amendment will take, they have submitted an amendment which is at the desk which will take 47 percent of all the money. If that amendment to this bill, which is at the desk and has not been called up yet, is adopted, I believe it is 47 percent, maybe 48 percent of all the money will go to this one project. If 40 percent of the money goes to the States, that is 88 percent of all the money. What we find is that those health programs that we want to fund have become discretionary. They are not part of the budget process; they are not part of the estimated amount coming in under this bill. They will be discretionary, and they will be subject to appropriations. When you live with these people, having been one of them, having been a farmer, and you see them every day, it seems a little bit ironic that we are telling them what is good for them, because this year they voted 97 and 98 percent to keep the program. Yet, we are saying to them, ``You don't know what you are talking about; you don't know what you voted for; we're going to change it; we're going to do away with that program that 98 percent of the farmers said they want to keep.'' We say to them, ``You don't know, we know better than you do,'' and that is what I said earlier. One of the reasons this place isn't liked is because we get 98 percent of a group of people who say we want to keep this, and we say, ``No, we know better than you do, so we're going to take it away from you.'' Oh, you can go out there and get all kinds of polls. You can get the fellow who grows 600,000 pounds of tobacco a year, and he sure would like to have 4.8 million. They say under the Lugar bill you can keep growing. Sure, but at what price? My Agriculture Department estimates that the 65,000 farm families in Kentucky will be reduced to less than 10 percent. Only the big farmers can contract with the manufacturers who will be getting $1 billion more a year. Do you want to vote for the farmer, or do you want to vote for the tobacco manufacturers? It comes down to that. Just think, you will be reducing farm values in my State by up to $7 billion. I have heard a lot from the other side of the aisle and some on this side about property rights. I have talked to my home builders and others who worry about takings. Under this one amendment, if this one amendment is adopted, up to $7 billion in farm value will be lost. That is almost one-third of the farm value in my State. Approximately $20 billion is the assessed value of the farm property in Kentucky. So we are reducing the value of that land and the ability of that farmer to secure a loan. It doesn't make any difference how much money you give him. Our average is about 3,000 pounds, and you want to pay it over 3 years. That is $24,000. Then, you are going to pay tax on it. Boy, that is really going to be great. Only the large farmers are the ones who have the voice. The small farmer down there working depends on others. But Hamilton said in these Halls, meaning the House and the Senate, ``The people's voice shall be heard by their immediate representative.'' I am that immediate representative. And I am trying to bring the voice of the small farmer to the attention of my colleagues here in the Senate. Is this emotional for me? Of course it is. In my last few months here in the Senate, I ought to be over there taking care of constituents, packing up my papers, getting them to the university, getting ready to go home and spend some time with my family. But, no; the worst political question of my career, the toughest one I have ever had, is now in the last 6 months of my service in the U.S. Senate. You sit on the front porch with these farmers. You sit in the kitchen and drink coffee with them and their families. From back in June of 1997, last year, June 20, the farmers have been on a roller coaster ever since. Let me try to describe a little better where I come from with my LEAF Act. Tobacco farmers tried to get in on the negotiations between the Attorney General, the tobacco companies, and public health groups. They were not let in the room. They were not even let in the room. I tried to find out what was going on. It was private. It was quiet. It was closed. But the White House was there. The health groups were there. The attorneys general were there. The tobacco companies were there. But the ones who are going to get hurt the most were not there. Now we are trying to hurt them even more. The June 20 settlement did not include one dime for the tobacco farmer. But there is $750 million in there for NASCAR and rodeos. And I didn't hear anybody say, ``Take that out.'' No. ``Take it away from the farmer. Don't take it away from NASCAR. Don't take it away from rodeos. Let them advertise at rodeos. Let them advertise at NASCAR.'' I am for the Winston 500. I do not have any problem with that. But I have not heard a word in here, or from the other side, that they gave too much to NASCAR, that they gave too much to rodeos. But, boy, you sure are taking away from the farmer down there who has labored all his life and has produced a superior product. Alben Barkley, on this floor in 1939, put in the tobacco program. It took him 3 years--1936 through 1939. Alben Barkley was a pretty good legislator. He was a mighty fine Vice President. I think he understood his people as well as anybody. And it hasn't changed. I wish I had the ability that Alben Barkley had to speak and to convince people that what I am trying to do is right. But sitting on those front porches, sitting in the kitchens and talking to the farm families, I told them to get to work and come up with something that they felt would be acceptable. And to work they went. They developed a comprehensive plan not just for individual tobacco farms but for their communities as well. We have not thought about Russellville or Horse Cave or Glasgow or Springfield or Carrollton. They are small farm communities that depend on tobacco. And their banks depend on tobacco. Their businesses depend on tobacco. Fifty percent of their income comes from tobacco. The average, in my State, is 25 percent is farm income. There are loans because the value of the property is there. The banker understands as long as the program is there, it gives them financial stability. And so last October, after months and weeks of work, we introduced the Long-Term Economic Assistance for Farmers Act, what we call the LEAF Act. And, you know, even the night before I introduced that--and we all sat around, made one change--we all shook hands and got up and left, that this is what we are going to support. And it was cosponsored by nine tobacco State Senators--myself, Senator Helms, Senator Faircloth, Senator McConnell, Senator Hollings, Senator Thurmond, Senator Frist, Senator Cleland, and Senator Coverdell. All of us agreed that this was in the best interest of the tobacco farmers and the communities and the welfare of our States. Since that time, we have worked hard to broaden our consensus, including changes sought by Senators Robb and Warner of Virginia and their tobacco growers. We made those changes. We accepted a broader consensus. This modified version of the LEAF Act is now included in the bill before the Senate in title X. Title XV, on the other hand, was inserted into the bill at the last minute after we got to the floor. It was never debated in the Commerce Committee. It was never debated during the markup. And all of a sudden here it comes--after we had an agreement. And the chairman went and explained the bill to farmers and what was in it. It provides buyout payments for tobacco farmers who want to leave the program. And they keep using, against this bill, that, ``You take our money and you can keep on growing.'' Well, if you keep the program and you sell out, that reduces--you no longer can grow, you don't want to grow. It may be the widow who has the quota. It may be the elderly couple who can no longer perform. But remember this: 69 percent of all the farmers in Kentucky, 69 percent of all the quota holders in Kentucky, have another job. This is a husband, wife, and family operation; 3,000 pounds, 3,100 pounds. Instead of hiring help, they do it themselves. And that money is theirs. They buy a major appliance. They paint the house. They get a new truck, pay on the mortgage, help send the kids to school. What are we saying to those families now? ``In 36 months you're gone.'' Three thousand pounds is the average. That is $24,000; $8,000 a year. And you are going to pay tax on it. Hasn't anybody said whether there is going to be capital gains or regular taxes? If it is capital gains, it is 20 percent. So you take $1,600 out of that right off the top. I have not heard whether it is going to be capital gains or regular taxes. Maybe some people who understand the tax program better than I do can come up here and say how great it is going to be, and they will not have to pay any. There are buyout payments for tobacco farmers who want to leave the program. But under the Lugar amendment, the program is gone. And for 3 years you still pay them so much per pound, and they can grow all they want to. So it costs the taxpayers lots and lots of money, and nothing will go to the farmer, it will go to the pool. And then after the 3 years, there is nothing. And who owns it? Who is going to pay for it? I think I know, and I think the Senator from Indiana knows. It reforms and maintains a tobacco-supplied management program. We have a core principle statement by about 24 health groups and the tobacco groups that they support--whatever--to reduce youth smoking. But they also support keeping the program. It maintains a tobacco- supplied management program. Without a tobacco-supplied management program, the 124,000 tobacco farm families in this country--which their average tobacco growing in various States varies, the amounts--have absolutely no bargaining power to deal with the four largest tobacco corporations. We are getting to a point where everybody is getting down to just a small group controlling everything. Four tobacco manufacturers control 98 percent of the tobacco grown in this country. The Senator from Indiana says about 40 percent of the tobacco in cigarettes now are foreign. I think that is a little high. Of course, if you are for something it is less, and if you are against something it is higher. I find somewhere in the middle might be about right. We do have GATT and GATT limits the amount of tobacco that can be imported into this country. I know that was about 150,000 metric tons and the tobacco companies have first choice. So when you are going up against the small group of companies that control the 98 percent of everything, you don't have much bargaining power unless you have a program. So we say as you reduce the quota based on 1995, 1996 and 1997, that we will take the difference in that as we transition out into the future. Most agricultural economists say that it takes 10 to 15 years, and closer to 15 years, to transition into a new economic stream. So as we look here at the bill itself we are under what the bill says will go to agriculture. What the Senator from Indiana has to do with his amendment, if passed and accepted, he has to correct the bill to say he will get almost 48 percent of all money for the next 4 years, where we will only get 16. At the end of 10, we only get 4. Talk about saving money--it costs $10 billion more. The bill is for 25 years. My amendment is for 25 years. If you want to shorten it some, that is all right. If you are willing to talk, I am willing to talk, too, but I am not willing to give up what the farmers have earned. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids--they have been very active in this--supports a continuation of the tobacco program. They said the following: Legitimate concerns have been raised that in the absence of some sort of a program, tobacco production may, in fact, increase; that tobacco will be grown in other States that presently do not produce tobacco and the tobacco companies and the tobacco leaf dealer will gain control over the production and move to contract production, keeping tobacco farmers and their communities at risk. The Senator from Indiana knows that. He knows that. But no, he wants to say here is the money, you get it upfront, you pay your taxes on it, you get it over 3 years and I will only get 48 percent of all money for the next 3 years. I am not sure he can get that. When you have the marriage penalty in here, you have Senator Coverdell and his drugs, vouchers and the veterans --we have done a lot of work here. To do everything but take care of the farmer and to try to stop underage smoking does not make sense. What is going to stop underage smoking in this act? I think you lose control of the production of tobacco under the Lugar amendment. You have no way of controlling it except by price. When prices go down and tobacco companies make $1 billion more a year, you will vote for the farmer; you will vote for the manufacturer. I hope you will vote for that hard-working family, hard-working, God-fearing family. Under the LEAF Act, it requires that tobacco companies pay all the administrative costs associated with the tobacco program, assuring that no general taxpayer funds will be used for the tobacco program. Right now, the only cost to the Federal Government under the tobacco program is the administration of the program and the poor old tobacco farmer out there pays a deficit budget fee. I doubt if anybody here has ever heard of a deficit budget fee paid by a farmer who grows a legitimate crop. Last season they paid in over $30 million, about $32-34 million. The tobacco farmer pays a deficit reduction fee before he gets his check from the warehouse. Think about that now. You have assessed him out there about everything you can assess him for and he has paid everything but the administrative fee, and now we are willing to take care of that. Somehow or another that poor tobacco farmer down there has been beat on and beat on and beat on. Somebody has got to stand up for him against the big manufacturers. Whether Senator Lugar knows it or not, he is playing into the hands of the tobacco manufacturers by saving them $1 billion a year. When you take the controls off, they are then in control of how much tobacco they want and what they will pay for it. If we don't deal with this, if we want to get around GATT, I am sure that will be the next one--they want to increase the amount of imports from 150,000 metric tons to whatever so they can bring foreign tobacco in here that has no control over pesticides or anything else, no environmental control and bring those on in, so it will be 100 percent. You are going to get it coming up from Mexico, you are going to get it coming down from Canada. I understand Marlboro Lights in Mexico are around 90 cents. We have tens of thousands of cartons of cigarettes being made every month on Indian reservations. This is playing into their hands --they don't want to pay State taxes. All these things are happening, but there is no control under Senator Lugar's amendment of the growth of tobacco. The LEAF Act, or title X of the bill provides economic development funding to tobacco-growing States which must deal with the impact of settlement legislation. We understand that if this bill ever becomes law, and the way it is going now and what the House says and Speaker Gingrich says, we are just flipping our lips here because it isn't going anywhere when it gets there. We are spinning our wheels. There hasn't been anything added to this piece of legislation to stop underage smoking--maybe $1.10. But you get a $185 pair of Nike shoes and some kind of jacket with all the designs on it and all that, and $3 or $4 for a pack of cigarettes, I don't think it bothers anybody too much. But then you ruin the farmer. You ruin the farmer. So we try somehow as we reduce the use of tobacco, and hopefully we do, we just try to say to that community--and I can go down community after community and say to them that we are going to try to help you with infrastructure, with economic development, with loans for new business, to try to make up for the loss. And it all comes out of the tobacco company. It is not a taxpayer fund. It is not coming out of the general fund anyhow, but it comes out of the money developed from the tobacco companies. One thing I found, that the love of the tobacco farmer or the farmer for his family is hard to improve upon. They are out there in the country and they get up early, work hard, go to school, come back, work hard, study. One thing that a farm family wants is to see that their children have a good education. If we put him out of business--and 90 percent of them, my university estimates, will be--and there is no income, how do they do it? We keep the program and we say, then, that as the time goes by, and in a certain period, in a certain amount, we will give the tobacco-growing families who wish to provide our* education assistance for their children. What is wrong with that? I don't see anything wrong with it. Others may. They say, well, you are trying to do too much. Well, if you are going to put somebody out of business and that is not his or her choice, something has to be done. Everybody around here voted for NAFTA--I didn't, but most of them did. What do you do about dislocated workers? I had about 25,000 in my State in the textile industry, and all of those jobs have gone to Mexico after NAFTA. What do you do with 25,000 idle workers? Under the law, you try to train them and get them prepared for another job. That is what we said here. We provide assistance for dislocated workers from tobacco warehouses, processing and manufacturing facilities, who lose their jobs as a result of this tobacco legislation. What is wrong with that? We do it every place else. You say you don't want to do it for this industry. Well, not a farmer had a document, not a farmer was in on the advertising, and not a farmer did anything except try to support the tobacco program. I think that we have developed an approach that looks not just at the farmer, but at the entire community that will be impacted by this legislation. This approach is included in title X of what we call the McCain bill. I can understand the large farmers wanting their money and then being allowed to grow all they want. They will be the only ones that can contract with the manufacturers. They will be the ones that will get the big money and membership on the board of some outfit down there. Not one of them grow less than 200,000 pounds of tobacco a year, and so they get anywhere from $1.6 million to around $4.8 million--just those four people. So they will get around maybe $10 million, $11 million, or $12 million. No wonder. Those four who raised about 1.2 million pounds are big enough. They are big enough to deal with the manufacturers. But we have just paid them a good deal of money and told them ``you are out on your own.'' They like that. They have money. But you are going to pay it over 3 years, and they are going to have to pay tax on it, so it is going to stick them a little bit. Title XV, on the other hand, promises tobacco farmers the same amount of money, but over 3 years instead of 9. It would allow for the unlimited and largely unregulated production of tobacco. Title XV saves tobacco companies $1 billion per year for the next 25 years. Title XV requires somewhere between 46--I wanted to look at the amendment, and I am sure the Senator will correct me. It is 46 or 48 percent of all the money--that is in the amendment at the desk--to pay for the Lugar amendment in the next 3 years, where under the bill it says it can only have 16 percent. At the end of 9 years, we only get 4 percent. Something about that in the transition, it seems to me, ought to be done. So let's remember that title XV is a billion dollars per year windfall for the tobacco companies. It is $1 billion a year windfall for the tobacco companies. Are you going to vote for the farmer or the tobacco companies? I think that question is pretty clear. Each year, tobacco companies pay based on the program. Most of the time, they pay above the average. So we take the average and knock 70 cents a pound off. That is going in. You can't pay people to grow it, fertilize it, for the equipment and all that, and come out as a small farmer. So roughly one-third will be reduced. Over the course of 25 years, the Lugar amendment saves the tobacco manufacturers a minimum of $25 billion. Do you want to take the manufacturers over the farmers? I hope not. And the Lugar amendment takes away the money that the Leaf Act would spend to try to spur economic development, to try to give them technical advice, to go from one crop to the other, which is not in the Lugar amendment. It takes away the education. It doesn't even talk about educating kids. We are just going to put you out of business and give you some money and let you go on your own. We are going to reduce the value of your land--in my State, $7 billion. How is that going to reflect on the taxes that are paid in the counties and the cities and the State? Are they going to raise taxes on a smaller amount of value? You know, this thing has ripples. I don't believe the Senator from Indiana has thought all these through. If he has, I don't believe he would be this harsh on tobacco farmers. I am sure there would be a rebuttal, but you can't rebut if you take the quota away and it reduces the value of the land. That is a taking. You go to bed with the value of the land, and you wake up and the program is gone; tomorrow the value of your land is gone. They can foreclose on you because you don't have enough value to cover your mortgage.

Mr. FORD. I will be glad to yield. I wondered how long you were going to sit there and take all this.

Mr. FORD. I respect the Senator from Indiana, also.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for a question so we might understand tomorrow?

Mr. FORD. I ask the Senator this. We have morning business from 9:30 to 10:30. I didn't hear the Senator. Are we out at 10:30 in recess?